Thus the new definition of proof in online debate is to say something untrue of a person and then when the person says it’s untrue cite that as proof of them saying it. It’s just like Monty Python’s “Jehovah” sketch from Life of Brian except without the intelligence or humour.

And then there is the third and laziest response, which is to simply ignore all facts both real and imagined and dismiss the argument based on the colour of the person making it. Thus whatever a white man says about history is inherently racist and wrong and if such an argument is championed by a brave indigenous woman like Jacinta Nampijinpa Price she is dismissed as a racist enabler.

And of course if you are accused of being a racist you cannot deny being a racist because racists don’t get to decide whether they are racist or not. This logic is straight from the Salem Witch Trials, although again without the intelligence or humour.
And of course if none of that works anyone the hard left disagrees is simply told to “shut the f*** up”.

And so this is the world we have become. A world where people comb through texts for something to be outraged about or try to force people to say things that they can be outraged about or just call people racist and then get outraged by how racist they are.

The facts don’t matter in public debate anymore. All that matters is whether something fits within a pre-constructed “correct” narrative; if not it is deemed offensive. If something upsets somebody then it cannot be true.

The sea lions are protected and they are fuckers. Give it a few years and they will be a threat to safety.

The fuckers already are. There are a number of reports of them biting swimmers and people in kayaks. A little girl was dragged off of a wharf near Vancouver and into the water awhile ago but fortunately was rescued quickly and unhurt. A scuba diver was killed a hundred miles north of here by a large Stellers Sea lion that almost certainly wasn't even used to people.
I had a large male California Sea Lion chase me onto the beach when I was fishing out of a float tube a number of years ago. They are fucking vermin that numbers are getting out of control. Just from the damage they are doing to the local fish stocks is plenty reason to start culling them. :twisted:

Thus the new definition of proof in online debate is to say something untrue of a person and then when the person says it’s untrue cite that as proof of them saying it. It’s just like Monty Python’s “Jehovah” sketch from Life of Brian except without the intelligence or humour.

And then there is the third and laziest response, which is to simply ignore all facts both real and imagined and dismiss the argument based on the colour of the person making it. Thus whatever a white man says about history is inherently racist and wrong and if such an argument is championed by a brave indigenous woman like Jacinta Nampijinpa Price she is dismissed as a racist enabler.

And of course if you are accused of being a racist you cannot deny being a racist because racists don’t get to decide whether they are racist or not. This logic is straight from the Salem Witch Trials, although again without the intelligence or humour.
And of course if none of that works anyone the hard left disagrees is simply told to “shut the f*** up”.

And so this is the world we have become. A world where people comb through texts for something to be outraged about or try to force people to say things that they can be outraged about or just call people racist and then get outraged by how racist they are.

The facts don’t matter in public debate anymore. All that matters is whether something fits within a pre-constructed “correct” narrative; if not it is deemed offensive. If something upsets somebody then it cannot be true.

Thus the new definition of proof in online debate is to say something untrue of a person and then when the person says it’s untrue cite that as proof of them saying it. It’s just like Monty Python’s “Jehovah” sketch from Life of Brian except without the intelligence or humour.

And then there is the third and laziest response, which is to simply ignore all facts both real and imagined and dismiss the argument based on the colour of the person making it. Thus whatever a white man says about history is inherently racist and wrong and if such an argument is championed by a brave indigenous woman like Jacinta Nampijinpa Price she is dismissed as a racist enabler.

And of course if you are accused of being a racist you cannot deny being a racist because racists don’t get to decide whether they are racist or not. This logic is straight from the Salem Witch Trials, although again without the intelligence or humour.
And of course if none of that works anyone the hard left disagrees is simply told to “shut the f*** up”.

And so this is the world we have become. A world where people comb through texts for something to be outraged about or try to force people to say things that they can be outraged about or just call people racist and then get outraged by how racist they are.

The facts don’t matter in public debate anymore. All that matters is whether something fits within a pre-constructed “correct” narrative; if not it is deemed offensive. If something upsets somebody then it cannot be true.

This is true in online dogpiles. And it's something that all sides use, whenever it's convenient.

Here you attribute to my "muslim whispering" that I want to place "as many people" from muslim-traditionalist countries into secular countries. Which is a straw man, or more charitable a huge exaggeration, that you use to dismiss my arguments.

Also you blame me and my "civic nationalism" for some SocJus ideas which I never endorsed, for example here

Oh look. An Asian Aussie Journo condescended to watch Crocodile Dundee only to be struck by its 1980s Anglo identity.

Thanks Kirb for civic nationalism.

And I could go on. Are you sure that this tactic of yours is very different from the tactics used by the Social Justice brigade?

Thus the new definition of proof in online debate is to say something untrue of a person and then when the person says it’s untrue cite that as proof of them saying it. It’s just like Monty Python’s “Jehovah” sketch from Life of Brian except without the intelligence or humour.

And then there is the third and laziest response, which is to simply ignore all facts both real and imagined and dismiss the argument based on the colour of the person making it. Thus whatever a white man says about history is inherently racist and wrong and if such an argument is championed by a brave indigenous woman like Jacinta Nampijinpa Price she is dismissed as a racist enabler.

And of course if you are accused of being a racist you cannot deny being a racist because racists don’t get to decide whether they are racist or not. This logic is straight from the Salem Witch Trials, although again without the intelligence or humour.
And of course if none of that works anyone the hard left disagrees is simply told to “shut the f*** up”.

And so this is the world we have become. A world where people comb through texts for something to be outraged about or try to force people to say things that they can be outraged about or just call people racist and then get outraged by how racist they are.

The facts don’t matter in public debate anymore. All that matters is whether something fits within a pre-constructed “correct” narrative; if not it is deemed offensive. If something upsets somebody then it cannot be true.

Don't you remember? . Count Dankula's judge decided that context doesn't matter any more. So that's the end of the matter thankyou. :snooty:

I was idly toying with the Globe & Mail's webpage this morning, and spotted a Margaret Wente headline that looked interesting, but it had the little key icon under it that signifies subscribers only. That itself is curious, as the G&M has tried to rid itself of her as she doesn't align with their politics in the required seamless fashion, so I assumed the article ("Can Canada Avoid a Populist Revolt?) was considered spicy enough to be worth hiding leaving the title as bait for potential subscribers.

Anyway, my point. Noticing the text briefly appears before being replaced with a demand for subscription payment, I thought I ought to be able to get at it. Eventually, I did. This is Firefox 65, with uBlock Origin set to allow 3rd party scripts on theglobeandmail.com. Click on the article, get a page with title and request for subscription. Click on the Reader view icon in the address bar, get a different version of the same page. Refresh - and there is the reader version of the article.
This doesn't work with Vivaldi (Chromium-based), and did work with Safari, and oddly enough, after doing it in Safari now all the subscriber pages just open without the above trick.

In the age of Trump, those of us who are immigrants from the United States feel doubly blessed to live in Canada (even in winter). Canada is an island of sanity in a sea of craziness. Not for us the ethno-nationalist populism that has upset so much of Europe. Not for us the xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiments that helped propel Donald Trump to power. We’re proud of our Canadian exceptionalism. We are the nation that has kept its head. For now.

The nations upended by right-wing populism all have one thing in common. They are all facing white demographic decline. And that is the breeding ground for populist revolts. These revolts are linked directly to immigration, as Eric Kaufmann argues in his deeply researched new book, Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities.

In Canada, the demographic shift will be huge. Today about 20 per cent of Canadians are visible minorities. But in 90 years, only about 20 per cent of Canadians will be white; most will belong to a racially hybrid majority, according to Mr. Kaufmann. The political fault lines of the future will be drawn along ethnocultural, rather than class divisions.

Whiteshift argues that it’s time to open up room for a legitimate conversation about white anxiety over immigration and the rate of change, rather than treat the subject as automatically toxic. For too long, argues Mr. Kaufmann, the establishment left – with the help of the establishment media – has branded any challenge to immigration levels as illegitimate and racist. This is dangerous, he told me, because “we’re giving ammunition and oxygen to the far right.” The results of not giving a mainstream outlet to these views are all around us: Look at Sweden, or Germany, or the U.S.

Mr. Kaufmann, a professor of politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, was brought up in British Columbia. So he’s well-acquainted with Canada’s cosmopolitan vibe. Among the reigning classes – including the media – the coming demographic transformation is simply assumed to be a good thing, even proof of our superior virtue as a nation.

So why has there been no backlash here? Mr. Kaufmann argues that because of the peculiarities of Anglo-Canadian history, English-Canadian identity basically collapsed along with the Empire. As a result, white English Canadians don’t really have a national identity. “No ethnic founding myth or sense of peoplehood survived the fall of Britannic nationalism,” he writes in his book. What moved into the void was a new religion – the religion of multiculturalism and diversity. "The contemporary Anglo-defined Canadian identity is futuristic: a missionary nationalism centred on the left-modernist ideology of multiculturalism,” he writes. (He’s quick to add that this analysis doesn’t pertain to Quebec, whose brand of ethno-populism looks far more like Europe’s. )

Canada doesn’t really have a right-wing party. On all major issues, including immigration, the Conservatives are almost indistinguishable from the Liberals. The parties’ views on immigration are virtually identical. Even though, according to EKOS, as many as 40 per cent of Canadians think there are too many “visible minorities” among those immigrating to Canada, this view gets no airing by any mainstream politician. Immigration opinion is similar in Canada and the U.S. But it has been politicized only by the American right, not the Canadian right.

“So long as a critical mass of opinion formers support – or fail to challenge – the rule that politicizing multiculturalism and immigration is racist, the system is stable,” writes Mr. Kauffmann. “Though there is sporadic protest over border security and illegal immigration, support for high immigration and multiculturalism is currently unassailable due to anti-racist norms.”

Does this mean that English Canada is safe from the scourge of national populism? Until recently Mr. Kaufmann was inclined to think so. But he’s changed his mind. “People argued that it would never come to Germany, Britain, Sweden, or Spain,” he said. “Now it has hit them all. We are not immune.” He also believes that the Tories’ decision to skirt the immigration issue opens the door for a populist party on the right, or for a populist Conservative leader.

That doesn’t mean Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party will be it. So far the media have done an effective job confining him to the margins. He has few visible followers, and is regarded as a mild threat to the Conservative vote rather than as a political force on his own.

Ironically, Mr. Kaufmann believes the most polarizing political figure in Canadian politics today is probably Justin Trudeau. “He is the standard-bearer for the most out-there version of globalism,” he told me.

Mr, Trudeau speaks for millions of Canadians. But he doesn’t speak for millions more – people who aren’t sure they’re comfortable with the rate of change, folks who think globalism has gone too far, and others who say they don’t recognize the place where they grew up any more. Those people aren’t going to go away. And sooner or later, they will find a voice.

screwtape wrote: ↑
I was idly toying with the Globe & Mail's webpage this morning, and spotted a Margaret Wente headline that looked interesting, but it had the little key icon under it that signifies subscribers only. That itself is curious, as the G&M has tried to rid itself of her as she doesn't align with their politics in the required seamless fashion, so I assumed the article ("Can Canada Avoid a Populist Revolt?) was considered spicy enough to be worth hiding leaving the title as bait for potential subscribers.

Anyway, my point. Noticing the text briefly appears before being replaced with a demand for subscription payment, I thought I ought to be able to get at it. Eventually, I did. This is Firefox 65, with uBlock Origin set to allow 3rd party scripts on theglobeandmail.com. Click on the article, get a page with title and request for subscription. Click on the Reader view icon in the address bar, get a different version of the same page. Refresh - and there is the reader version of the article.
This doesn't work with Vivaldi (Chromium-based), and did work with Safari, and oddly enough, after doing it in Safari now all the subscriber pages just open without the above trick.

In the age of Trump, those of us who are immigrants from the United States feel doubly blessed to live in Canada (even in winter). Canada is an island of sanity in a sea of craziness. Not for us the ethno-nationalist populism that has upset so much of Europe. Not for us the xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiments that helped propel Donald Trump to power. We’re proud of our Canadian exceptionalism. We are the nation that has kept its head. For now.

The nations upended by right-wing populism all have one thing in common. They are all facing white demographic decline. And that is the breeding ground for populist revolts. These revolts are linked directly to immigration, as Eric Kaufmann argues in his deeply researched new book, Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities.

In Canada, the demographic shift will be huge. Today about 20 per cent of Canadians are visible minorities. But in 90 years, only about 20 per cent of Canadians will be white; most will belong to a racially hybrid majority, according to Mr. Kaufmann. The political fault lines of the future will be drawn along ethnocultural, rather than class divisions.

Whiteshift argues that it’s time to open up room for a legitimate conversation about white anxiety over immigration and the rate of change, rather than treat the subject as automatically toxic. For too long, argues Mr. Kaufmann, the establishment left – with the help of the establishment media – has branded any challenge to immigration levels as illegitimate and racist. This is dangerous, he told me, because “we’re giving ammunition and oxygen to the far right.” The results of not giving a mainstream outlet to these views are all around us: Look at Sweden, or Germany, or the U.S.

Mr. Kaufmann, a professor of politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, was brought up in British Columbia. So he’s well-acquainted with Canada’s cosmopolitan vibe. Among the reigning classes – including the media – the coming demographic transformation is simply assumed to be a good thing, even proof of our superior virtue as a nation.

So why has there been no backlash here? Mr. Kaufmann argues that because of the peculiarities of Anglo-Canadian history, English-Canadian identity basically collapsed along with the Empire. As a result, white English Canadians don’t really have a national identity. “No ethnic founding myth or sense of peoplehood survived the fall of Britannic nationalism,” he writes in his book. What moved into the void was a new religion – the religion of multiculturalism and diversity. "The contemporary Anglo-defined Canadian identity is futuristic: a missionary nationalism centred on the left-modernist ideology of multiculturalism,” he writes. (He’s quick to add that this analysis doesn’t pertain to Quebec, whose brand of ethno-populism looks far more like Europe’s. )

Canada doesn’t really have a right-wing party. On all major issues, including immigration, the Conservatives are almost indistinguishable from the Liberals. The parties’ views on immigration are virtually identical. Even though, according to EKOS, as many as 40 per cent of Canadians think there are too many “visible minorities” among those immigrating to Canada, this view gets no airing by any mainstream politician. Immigration opinion is similar in Canada and the U.S. But it has been politicized only by the American right, not the Canadian right.

“So long as a critical mass of opinion formers support – or fail to challenge – the rule that politicizing multiculturalism and immigration is racist, the system is stable,” writes Mr. Kauffmann. “Though there is sporadic protest over border security and illegal immigration, support for high immigration and multiculturalism is currently unassailable due to anti-racist norms.”

Does this mean that English Canada is safe from the scourge of national populism? Until recently Mr. Kaufmann was inclined to think so. But he’s changed his mind. “People argued that it would never come to Germany, Britain, Sweden, or Spain,” he said. “Now it has hit them all. We are not immune.” He also believes that the Tories’ decision to skirt the immigration issue opens the door for a populist party on the right, or for a populist Conservative leader.

That doesn’t mean Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party will be it. So far the media have done an effective job confining him to the margins. He has few visible followers, and is regarded as a mild threat to the Conservative vote rather than as a political force on his own.

Ironically, Mr. Kaufmann believes the most polarizing political figure in Canadian politics today is probably Justin Trudeau. “He is the standard-bearer for the most out-there version of globalism,” he told me.

Mr, Trudeau speaks for millions of Canadians. But he doesn’t speak for millions more – people who aren’t sure they’re comfortable with the rate of change, folks who think globalism has gone too far, and others who say they don’t recognize the place where they grew up any more. Those people aren’t going to go away. And sooner or later, they will find a voice.

Another trick that can work in Firefox at least is to hit the Esc key before the subscription popup appears. Needs careful timing to get it after the text has loaded but before the popup, and doesn't work in all cases. Also, you can paste the URL into google and use the "view cached version" for some instances.

screwtape wrote: ↑
Anyway, my point. Noticing the text briefly appears before being replaced with a demand for subscription payment, I thought I ought to be able to get at it. Eventually, I did. This is Firefox 65, with uBlock Origin set to allow 3rd party scripts on theglobeandmail.com. Click on the article, get a page with title and request for subscription. Click on the Reader view icon in the address bar, get a different version of the same page. Refresh - and there is the reader version of the article.
This doesn't work with Vivaldi (Chromium-based), and did work with Safari, and oddly enough, after doing it in Safari now all the subscriber pages just open without the above trick.

And, if you want to read a page that blocks ad-blockers, hit whatever your 'cancel page load' key combo is (CMD-. on my mac) very quick. You can at least then clip the text if not read it straight.

I know I've posted "Muse" vids before (lukewarm reaction, Scented Nectar, I'm looking at you!) but this vid, to a song I've heard a thousand times, was completely unknown to me. I had no idea they filmed one for the track. Anyway, it's got me sniffling like a big Jessie so I thought I'd spread the misery...

A bold and articulate reply. I hope those voices are heeded, but I doubt it. There really needs to be a new, international psychology board, based on science and as free from partisanship as possible. The APA is a festering dunghole, and I doubt that any real change is possible within the community.

It’s true there was a red flag convergence of POVs. I don’t think you or Kirb understood the original article. It’s point wasn’t to deny the freedom to criticise. Or even criticise badly. Probably worth a second read.

screwtape wrote: ↑
Anyway, my point. Noticing the text briefly appears before being replaced with a demand for subscription payment, I thought I ought to be able to get at it. Eventually, I did. This is Firefox 65, with uBlock Origin set to allow 3rd party scripts on theglobeandmail.com. Click on the article, get a page with title and request for subscription. Click on the Reader view icon in the address bar, get a different version of the same page. Refresh - and there is the reader version of the article.
This doesn't work with Vivaldi (Chromium-based), and did work with Safari, and oddly enough, after doing it in Safari now all the subscriber pages just open without the above trick.

And, if you want to read a page that blocks ad-blockers, hit whatever your 'cancel page load' key combo is (CMD-. on my mac) very quick. You can at least then clip the text if not read it straight.

Sometimes blocking javascript on the page will stop the anti adblock notice. I use a Chrome extension.
And if a site allows limited free views, opening incognito can sometime get you an extra free visit.

A bold and articulate reply. I hope those voices are heeded, but I doubt it. There really needs to be a new, international psychology board, based on science and as free from partisanship as possible. The APA is a festering dunghole, and I doubt that any real change is possible within the community.

Have you considered how licensing bodies in general control the thoughts, attitudes and actions of licensees? I can't speak for all, but I have direct knowledge of medical licensing bodies. If they assume some particular attitude - be it some aspect of equality, tolerance or other PC-ness - you'd better go along with it or be open to censure for any complaint raised against you for not mouthing the correct platitudes. It was always recognised that family doctors acted as gatekeepers to the rest of the system, but now they have to sign the appropriate chit for, say, disability, whether due to gender dysphoria, morbid obesity, or Brexit anxiety. Decline to do so and you lose your license. Some of this is because of an undue willingness for such bodies to be seen to be modern and 'with it', but bizarrely some part of it is also an attempt to maintain the self-regulating aspect of a profession. We are told we must regulate ourselves in a manner that the public at large approves, or be subject to government control. While this might be an aspect of medical regulation that applies only in single-payer systems, it has sadly come to mean that the licensing bodies, and the physicians who choose to make a career in them, have become subservient to the public will. Invite well-meaning civilians to comprise 50% of all committees. Let civilians judge all complaint issues. Publish all complaints, proven or not, against physicians. And so on and so forth. We don't dare say no to a ridiculous request, but go along with whatever our taxpayer masters require of us. Exactly what the market forces would predict.

For those unaware, Mercedes Carrera, a porn star who supported GamerGate and collaborated on a charity with The Fine Young Capitalists, has been arrested on allegations of child sex abuse with a child under the age of 10. A lot of anti-GamerGate types have seized on all this in spite of their own history of defending admitted pedophiles in their own camp, to try and lord it over us despite many condemning her and others withholding judgment yet saying if true she should receive a harsh sentence. She has now put out a statement to adult entertainment news sites offering her side of the story:

Last week, my husband and I [were] arrested on charges of molesting my nine-year-old daughter, the absolute worst crime I can imagine. The charges were filed by her father, my ex-partner (a fundamentalist Christian). He is trying to take custody of our child from me. The charges are absolutely false and horrifying, and a last ditch effort to keep me from contact with my daughter for the rest of my life. I am so worried for her. Her life is shattered. Life will never be the same for any of us. We are struggling to make sense of this nightmare. This is a no-bail offense, so we are stuck in jail until we are cleared. We are facing decades in prison and do not even have money for a lawyer. We do not know what to do, but I ask that you all know me for who I am, and know that neither I nor my husband would ever, ever do anything like this to any child, let alone my beloved daughter.

I would note that, if the circumstances she describes are correct and it involves a custody dispute, this does generally mean it is more likely the allegation is false than otherwise. Such tactics are unfortunately more common in those cases. This does not mean the allegations are false, but it is something to keep in mind for people who may feel tempted to rush to judgment.

A bold and articulate reply. I hope those voices are heeded, but I doubt it. There really needs to be a new, international psychology board, based on science and as free from partisanship as possible. The APA is a festering dunghole, and I doubt that any real change is possible within the community.

Have you considered how licensing bodies in general control the thoughts, attitudes and actions of licensees? I can't speak for all, but I have direct knowledge of medical licensing bodies. If they assume some particular attitude - be it some aspect of equality, tolerance or other PC-ness - you'd better go along with it or be open to censure for any complaint raised against you for not mouthing the correct platitudes. It was always recognised that family doctors acted as gatekeepers to the rest of the system, but now they have to sign the appropriate chit for, say, disability, whether due to gender dysphoria, morbid obesity, or Brexit anxiety. Decline to do so and you lose your license. Some of this is because of an undue willingness for such bodies to be seen to be modern and 'with it', but bizarrely some part of it is also an attempt to maintain the self-regulating aspect of a profession. We are told we must regulate ourselves in a manner that the public at large approves, or be subject to government control. While this might be an aspect of medical regulation that applies only in single-payer systems, it has sadly come to mean that the licensing bodies, and the physicians who choose to make a career in them, have become subservient to the public will. Invite well-meaning civilians to comprise 50% of all committees. Let civilians judge all complaint issues. Publish all complaints, proven or not, against physicians. And so on and so forth. We don't dare say no to a ridiculous request, but go along with whatever our taxpayer masters require of us. Exactly what the market forces would predict.

Yep. Leading to anti-science feelgoodery. And licensing bodies to exist mostly for the sake of being necessary and self-perpetuating.

First it was phoning you for a quiet little chat, then it was visiting you for a friendly warning, now its seven hours in a police cell and a banning injunction. And it's still only February. Someone will be going down for a 10 stretch by summer. :shock:

Deputy Judge Jason Coppel QC issued an interim injunction that bans her from posting any personal information about Miss Hayden on social media, 'referencing her as a man' or linking her to her 'former male identity'.